Monday, January 26, 2009

Modern genetics proves conclusively that all life on earth is related to a single ancestor, and provides a remarkably accurate way to determine how closely certain species or animal populations are related to each other. Creationists, however, reject evolution and common descent, which poses problems for them with regards to the classification of life. Baraminology is the ham-fisted, pseudoscientific result. It stems, of course, from the bible:

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:24

So God created the different kinds of animals, and you'll often hear creationists talking about "kinds" as if it's a definable term. But it's a vague and imprecise distinction, and we really need better definitions than "creeping things" and "beasts". Baraminologists therefore attempt to classify life into kinds, or "baramin", using techniques shamelessly stolen from evolutionary biology. Since God created the "dog" kind, but not individual breeds of dogs (these are man-made by selective breeding, a genuine form of evolution which even the most hardened creationists are forced to admit to), baraminology has to include in its model some genetic mutation and diversification down the generations. Sound familiar? Check out one of their diagrams:

...which bears more than a little resemblance to the evolutionary "tree of life":

Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."

This is the same flawed logic as saying "the theory of gravity is rejected because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility of God pushing objects downwards".

While the baraminologist's model is basically evolution-lite, and concedes a lot of ground to the opposition (including the occurence of macroevolution), it does go some way to explaining how Noah fitted all those animals onto his ark, since he would only have needed two of each kind, not two of each species. This is the main reason for the popularity of the word "kinds" among creationists, and is a good demonstration of how these ignorami place a greater importance on their ridiculous and childish stories than on the real world.

1 comment:

This is tale which tells what recessive genes hold, what inbreeding cause's and what degenerate animals look like.A male lion breeds with a female tiger, makes a liger of great size!2

a male leopard breed with a female lion brings forth a leopon. Which not only has the size and strength of the lion but also has the climbing abilities of the leopard.3

All that has so far been said, is recognized by science.4

Now into the realm of what has not yet been 'validated' (by science).5

All the other cats are said to interbreedfrom time to time.6

The division of Species is based on the idea that, only members of the same 'Species' can indeed breed.But if all cats ( including the Egyptian house cat) can breed, they are not different Species but only subspecies of the original cat.

Now, if the liger is bigger and the leopon is of the same size and better. Then it comes to reason that the original cat from off the Ark was a super cat.Scientists say that the "extra" abilities that come out of these 'hybrids' are caused by "recessive genes"Recessive Genes are created by inbreeding.

Now here is the part that might interest a historian.

Gen 7:2

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

In this I think that the clean animals were allowed to descend without inbreeding and therefore pure. While the others were forced into inbreeding, which caused their abilities to go into 'Recessive genes'. The ancients had enough trouble with the lions, tigers, etc. So this might have been set to preserve man. Did you know that in India they breed the wild dog with the wolf to get a bigger breed. This alone means nothing, except that there is a story whcih appeared shortly after the flood. No later that 500 years, or 600, or 700, etc, after the flood. The story told of a great king who had wolves so great that his men were able to ride upon them, for they were far greater than any horse.

Maybe I'm going nowhere, but if only two cats, two dogs, two bears, etc, walked off the Ark. Then I say that it would immediately force inbreeding, which in turn would force abilities to go into recessive genes. And (to the point) would force the super Cat to degenerate into the lion, tiger, leopard, cheetah and house cat that we have today.

I'm sorry I couldn't help joking and calling the lion and tiger a degenerate.

"In the production of pure breeds of sheep, cattle, hogs, and horses inbreeding has frequently been practiced extensively, and where in such cases selection has been made of the more vigorous offspring as parents, it is doubtful whether any diminution in size, vigor, or fertility has resulted. Nevertheless it very frequently happens that when two pure breeds are crossed, the offspring surpass either pure race in size and vigor."

Sudden Origins by Jeffrey H. Schwartz

The tiger is either a pure breed are a degenerate species!Or I say.They are one and the same..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Else, the reason why the clean were in sevens as opposed to the others.

Genetic research (and this basic reasoning and breeding) has shown that every type of wolf, dog, fox and coyote etc. came from the 1 original wolf.Scott, John Paul and John L. Fuller Genetics and the Social Behavior of the DogBehaviour of Wolves, Dogs and Related Canines (Hardcover) by Michael W. Fox

Mitochondrial Eve (mt-mrca)

"Mitochondrial Eve is the ...........common ancestor (MRCA) of all human via the mitochondrial DNA pathway . In other words, she is the MRCA found when ancestry of all living humans is traced back in time, following only the maternal lineage. Mitochondrial DNA pathway is equivalent to maternal lineage, because Mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from mother to child, never father to child. [1]"

All known subspecies of the "horse" are known to breed!

1 Last thing.this theory is observable & testable, in that you can breed new 'breeds' of dogs in just a few years. But each of these will have less 'ablities' than the last.

Just take 2 dogs (of your choice) & place them in a zoo. Now there children will be fine but as there children breed with each other you will see the same thing happen. Only it will go ten times further than before.

Looking For Contributors

Heard a creationist say something dumb?Found a crappy intelligent design website?Interested in contributing to the idiocy?Let me know:CreationistIdiocy@gmail.com(feedback from creationists is welcome, but I may publish the content of your email)